And in reality if they were to turn their guns on the Government they would discover two things very quickly:

1. The Government has bigger guns and

2. The Government has more guns. A lot more guns.

Hence the need for bigger guns and more guns.

Not in the US.

With 2M active and reserve, they would need to have around 100 guns EACH to have more guns than those in private possession.

Tom

Which Tom?

Tom

I own several firearms and I enjoy shooting. I'm not too bad a shot.

Living in Switzerland means we are subject to one of the most liberal set of firearms regulations of any developed country.

Switzerland has the world's 3rd highest, per capita gun ownership after Yemen and the US. Yet gun homicide in Switzerland is so much lower, per 100,000 population than the US.

Is it because of superior training? higher thresholds to get a permit? conscription? better values? less abuse of opiods? lower population density? chem trails?

I can't figure it out.

See kk's post below. Because a private citizen did get involved (albeit after 20+ were murdered), this will be used to back up the claim of good guys with guns beat the bad guys with guns.

We all know that every bad guy fills out the paperwork honestly.

Many healthcare plans in the U.S. do not provide mental health coverage, or have limited coverage. That's sad. I also would not be surprised if he was told to pray his crazy away.

There are millions of people who feel the same way. I think the guys that got involved did help prevent further mayhem, however stopping this nutter from getting a semi-automatic weapon in the first place would have done more good.

I've said before it's not about need. It's about literal interpretation of the Constitution. "The 2nd Amendment says we can have guns, therefore we should be able to have all guns, all kinds, as many as we want and as much ammo as we want. Guns don't kill people, people kill people" (etc.)

I've seen this a lot, but aren't the statisticians counting all the military weapons as if they are "owned" by private citizens? Don't military guys keep the weapon at home but the ammo is kept at depots?

I don't have any good answers. I wish the U.S. could find a middle ground that involves more robust checks, better mental health treatment, and fewer weapons that are capable of killing dozens in a matter of seconds.

I was only blocks away from the Denver shooting when it happened.

Oh, I thought you were? Sorry if you are not, and not sorry if you are. x

They‘re all terrorists, dissatisfied with life, their lives and society. They‘re angry and violent. In fact, many of the lone wolf shooters in the US share an exposure to domestic violence. Is that a mental illness? Are terrorists mentally ill or are they angry, violent people with some axe to grind. It’s a fallacy to consider all miserable violent people as mentally ill. Sometimes a person is just a sh*t.

I think we need to be careful with brandishing terms like mental illness about. For example, I am a person with a mental illness - sucessfully treated for generalized anxiety. Like many people with a mental illness, I am more likely to be a victim than perpetrator of violence.

I bring this up because the label of “mentally ill” is so sloppy in its application to these terrorists who kill without thought.

It’s just as sloppy to refer to them all as “terrorists” as it is referring to them all as “mentally ill”.

Shooting up a group of pepole terrorizes them, therefore the shooter is a terrorist. Simples.

I disagree. Anyone who carries out a mass shooting is bent on striking terror in their victims. In that sense, mass shooter=terrorist.

Well you’re both wrong.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/terrorist

Time for the OED to have an update, i think. Unless of course, spreading anarchy and disruption is the desired political outcome. Might be.

Looks like the term "terrorist" has been hijacked and politicised, and you have to qualify to be awarded the title of "terrorist".

It's all pompous semantics. The raw terror that a group of people must feel in that situation is what it is. The bloke with a gun, a set of real or imagined issues and no regard for human life is indeed terrorising anyone on the other end of his weapon.

Dictionaries apparently don't mean much. Ask MC.

"Pompous semantics". No, it's a word, with a specific definition.

Dad is dead?

If the word had a specific definition then all dictionaries would have the same entry.

The legal definition isn't even universal.

You'll find that "political aim" is part of the description for terrorism in pretty much any dictionary you pick up.

If you want to call this guy a "terrorist" then fine, but then you have no room for argument when others wish to call him "mentally ill".

Many dictionaries use phrases like "especially for political aims". In other words often or even predominantly, but it is not a constraining condition for the use of the term.

There are all kinds of mental illnesses which do not cause terror outside of the sufferer.

Shooting a gun at a group of civilians causes terror.

Are you claiming that being a terrorist and suffering from a mental illness are mutually exclusive? That would be odd. To my mind the one goes with the other.

Which is a different thing from claiming that all people who suffer from mental illness are terrorists.

Do I need to draw a Venn diagram for you?

__________________
If everyone you know agrees with you consistently, they are either not listening, or not capable of critical thought.